Last month, an amendment to the UK’s Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill was dropped at the last minute. If passed, it would have forced the Crown Dependencies to produce a public register revealing who ultimately owns assets held by companies registered in their jurisdiction.
However, Chief Minister Ian Gorst and External Relations Minister Sir Philip Bailhache, along with government officials from other Crown Dependencies, successfully lobbied the UK government, stating that legislating for their jurisdictions would be unconstitutional.
It is feared that transparent registers could damage the finance industries of the islands because strict confidentiality arrangements are valued by clients.
Now, Martyn Dorey, outgoing president of the Guernsey Chamber of Commerce, has said Guernsey’s response had so far been ‘calm and level-headed’ – but stressed the need for a ‘plan B’.
‘It is a negotiation. We have got to be prepared to be independent if the needs require. We don’t necessarily want to,’ said Mr Dorey.
‘As part of that, what is the critical size we need to be self-governing? It is not 65,000 people but combine ourselves with Jersey and we have sufficient weight. We would have two-thirds the population of Iceland and we would actually be viable as a country.
‘But I do not think we should do that. I am not a nationalist, I am a pragmatist and I believe that we have got to be prepared in our own time and where it works, not where it does not, work more closely with Jersey in a sort of quasi-federal arrangement.’
Guernsey’s Chief Minister Gavin St Pier expressed concern that in trying to impose domestic policy for Guernsey ‘UK parliamentarians gave serious consideration to riding roughshod over centuries of constitutional convention, ancient rights and democratic process’.
He also raised the possibility of altering Guernsey’s constitutional relationship with the UK, if parliament breached the island’s constitution in the future and if he had the backing of the Sarnian public. He said: ‘In the event of any breach of constitutional convention by the UK, it is conceivable that the people of the Bailiwick may wish to express a view on the future constitutional relationship.’
